Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional.

[Cojafoji]

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Wednesday that the California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative denying marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional, in a case that will almost certainly go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses." The court, therefore, "orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement." Two key sentences from the ruling:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
That's what history sounds like.
Update: Good As You has a PDF of the decision (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html).

The ruling was a win for lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, an unlikely pair (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/05/gay_marriage_bringing_heterose.html) who faced off against one another during the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. (Olson represented George W. Bush and Boies represented Al Gore.)
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger applauded the ruling (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/schwarzenegger-villaraigosa-cheers-prop-8-rejection.html), saying it "affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."
Even before the ruling was released, lawyers for the opposing side filed a motion to stay his ruling (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15675497) pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But opponents of the ban weren't wasting any time. The San Francisco Appeal (http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/08/prop8.php) reported "an absolute scrum at the City Clerk's office, where Vanessa Judipli and Maria Ydril have been issued a marriage license," with an official on hand to marry the two women before any stay can go into effect.
Here's the full conclusion by Judge Walker:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
And the full remedies ruled:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

What say ye all? Good thing or a bad thing? I say good, mainly because, you know, it's actually a step in the right direction for once. :iamafag:

Anyway, just wanted to throw this out there, and maybe start a fire.

[Dwood]

Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional. Okay/Not Okay can be different. Same thing with many laws these days, It's the same deal in Arizona since there is nothing defining anything Constitutional or Unconstitutional in Arizona's Immigration law.

[Heathen]

It is unconstitutional.

[Siliconmaster]

To quote a facebook status I just saw: Yaaaaaay for the gaaaaaaays!

But seriously: definitely a good thing. Rights for everyone.

[EX12693]

Since when was marriage a right?

[ICEE]

Since when was marriage a right?

Now, I know you probably got this little quote from your mami or papi, or the chain emails your grammi forwards to you, but "right" is perhaps the most contextually broad word in the english language. In this sense, a "right" is not necessarily taken verbatim from the list in the constitution.

[EX12693]

Now, I know you're a sarcastic ass, or you're just a jerk, but I came up with that post myself. Hth.

Now then... I was actually asking a serious question. Is marriage a constitutional right?

[Bodzilla]

as far as i know, no.
that doesnt change the fact that discriminating based on a sexual preference is violating a right.
therefore they have the right to get married.

[EX12693]

Ah okay. Cool I guess?

[Crackers]

The problem with marriage of same sex couples lies in that it is closely tied with religions that look down upon the act. Marriage is not a universal act of love for everyone, and so it cannot be an unalienable right. An example of this would be to have many wives(this is not true marriage), this act is looked down upon also, but it can't be considered an inalienable right since it is just another bond for love that is not used by everyone.

It boils down to that since (usually) a preacher, a man whose religion is against homosexuality, marries partners and the bond is under the law of that god, the religion prohibits the union of gays. So here is the problem: The government would be forced to change the rules of a religion, which IS against a constitutional right.

So here is my opinion on this. The only reason gays want to be married is because the religions that enforce it are the dominant religions of the world so it is in their mind that marriage would be a universal aknowledgement that their union is allowed. But to be honest it boils down to fucking semantics as marriage and all the other unions pretty much mean the same thing and last time I checked they are allowed a union.
That said, what is unconstiutional is the financial and other rights given to married couples that are denied to this other union. Religion and marriage are too closely tied together, and I find a new union should be made for gays, atheists, or anyone else who wants an official bond that is unassociated with any religion and it should have all the rights marriage has.

So in a nutshell, gays should not be allowed to be married, but yes they deserve a form of union for themselves and others that does not have religious involvement and they should be allowed the same rights married couples get.

[ICEE]

No, you see though the concept of marriage may have originally been created by the church, the church loses all control over it when it becomes integrated in government and society.

It is integrated in government because marriage entitles each partner to the possessions of the other in the event of that partner's death.

It is integrated in society because it represents a major milestone in the average person's life. We grow up, go to college/work, get a decent job, meet someone, get married, make babies, raise sed babies, grow old, have grandchildren, and die. This is the desired course of life. When you take away the right to get married, you are denying that minority their desired course of life.

Heres why creating a separate union does not properly fill the gap: Seperate != equal

Even if the blacks prior to the civil rights movement would've gotten an equal education to the whites in their segregated schooling, a divided society is a borked one.


Furthermore, by your reasoning you may as well deny atheists the right to marry. That sure as shit wont be happening though will it? You cannot bind marriage to the confines of religious rules. That shit just doesn't fly anymore.

[Crackers]

No, you see though the concept of marriage may have originally been created by the church, the church loses all control over it when it becomes integrated in government and society.
Thing is, most people get married in a church by a preacher, so while the above should be true, it is not. The religion is still undeniably tied to marriage. This is why a new union with the same rights should be made for people who do not want to be associated with these religions. It would not be discrimination it would be catering actaully.
It is integrated in government because marriage entitles each partner to the possessions of the other in the event of that partner's death.
As said the other union should have the same rights as marriage.
It is integrated in society because it represents a major milestone in the average person's life. We grow up, go to college/work, get a decent job, meet someone, get married, make babies, raise sed babies, grow old, have grandchildren, and die. This is the desired course of life. When you take away the right to get married, you are denying that minority their desired course of life.
Marriage is just another one of the many unions made for love, so any union is a major milestone in life, marriage is just the most common one around and the most recognised. A gay couple or any other couple against the values of the above religion under a union with the same rights would not have any problems doing any of the above things in a "desired course".
Heres why creating a separate union does not properly fill the gap: Seperate != equal
As said I specifically called for eqaul rights of both unions.
Even if the blacks prior to the civil rights movement would've gotten an equal education to the whites in their segregated schooling, a divided society is a borked one.


Furthermore, by your reasoning you may as well deny atheists the right to marry. That sure as shit wont be happening though will it? You cannot bind marriage to the confines of religious rules. That shit just doesn't fly anymore.
As said all of this is semantics. Having a marriage and union with eqaul rights is basically the same thing, just not with the name or the religion associated with it. I believe atheists would chose this union over marriage because of that reason. Basically what I am saying is to humor the religion that is tied to marriage and create basically the same thing with a different name, it would avoid the whole shit storm going on now and everyone would get what they want. Thats why I think its fucking stupid gays are freaking out over a name when they could easily come to a solution with this. Marriage is just a fucking title and fighting over it is like fighting for the right to have the name king of the hill when you have the name emperor of the elevated mass of dirt.

I pretty much agree with you iron on the whole point that gays deserve eqaul rights, I just believe they and along with other people who do not support that religion should have a seperate but just as good union. Ordained ministers alone have the power to marry you, this does make the religion still tied with marriage. To take the religion out would be to force change on that religion, and that is unconstitutional, so the only outcome has to be the creation of a seperate union.

[Bodzilla]

Marriages arn't religious.
A lot of retards just happen to think they are.

It was just an idea the church stole from other society's to bring in revenue, people and also to integrate with the country's the religion was spreading in.

For instance Church used to be on saturdays, but i think it didnt fly with the romans (dont hold me as gospel on this, it may have been the romans, it may have been the piks, but i do know that it did change), so they started going on sunday beacuse it worked better with the pagan beliefs.
Thats why 7th Day Adventists (AKA the crazy religious sect of christianity) Go to church on Saturday, because it's the 7th day on your calender and the original time people went to church..

boom.

[Crackers]

Bod... All of that is contradictory, you basically just said it wasn't religious then said how the church "stole" it and integrated it into their religion, thus making it religious. Old in the religion or not, it is still tied to it...hence again the ordained minister and the usual church setting.
The original opening phrase to the vows at a wedding even says the word holy.
We are gathered here today, on this happy and joyous occasion, to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony.
Even then you're trying to disprove one tiny point in my statement when my main thesis is that gay's deserve eqaul rights, just one in a manner that doesn't cause a shit storm. They are litterally fighting for a title that no one truly needs.

Also I am going to be blunt and say this so no more confusion is given over my position in this.
Gays deserve to be together.
To avoid bullshit give them an eqaul union thats the same in everything but name. Pretty much I am on both of yalls sides, I just disagree with the ridiculously retarded way everyone is dealing with it currently.

[Bodzilla]

it's origins arnt religious you dope so saying it's religious is a moot point.

why do you care about the name.
Titles can mean a hell of alot to people and who the fuck are you to stand in their way over semantics?

come on, let this stupid Prejudice die and fill it instead with the knowledge that you've helped, and enabled a group of people the same shot at happiness that you get.

Be the bigger, better man.

[Dwood]

it's origins arnt religious you dope so saying it's religious is a moot point.

why do you care about the name.
Titles can mean a hell of alot to people and who the fuck are you to stand in their way over semantics?

come on, let this stupid Prejudice die and fill it instead with the knowledge that you've helped, and enabled a group of people the same shot at happiness that you get.

Be the bigger, better man.

The only reason it wouldn't be religious is if you aren't religious, if you are religious then marriage has been around since the beginning of humanity on this planet, if not before. You honestly can't tell a person that believes in a religion that marriage does not start with religion Bod. That argument will never, ever win in this country... probably any except one where most of its populace is atheist...

Bod, your argument won't even be considered if you were to say that to a senator or a politician, perhaps even most Historians- they make claims however there is only marginal proof of it, and it doesn't hold if you take a look outside of yourself and the hoity-toity circles you read online.

[Eleven]

The only reason it wouldn't be religious is if you aren't religious, if you are religious then marriage has been around since the beginning of humanity on this planet, if not before.

How could something that was created by humans exist before humanity...? :ugh:


It boils down to that since (usually) a preacher, a man whose religion is against homosexuality, marries partners and the bond is under the law of that god, the religion prohibits the union of gays. So here is the problem: The government would be forced to change the rules of a religion, which IS against a constitutional right.

No religion has the sole rights to marriage. I don't give a shit about what some bigoted preacher says - he shouldn't have the power to dictate what it is that people (gay or otherwise) can and cannot do.

Also, the legalisation of gay marriage wouldn't change any religion's rules. Anti-homosexual religious groups would be more than welcome to carry on with their medieval bullshit, it just wouldn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. Sex before marriage is perfectly legal, yet the Catholic Church forbids it. Is this unconstitutional as well?

[Bodzilla]

sorry all i heard was NANANAN I CANT HEAR YOU I"M COMFORTABLE WITH MY DELUSIONS AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR CONTEXT ON THIS ISSUE

[EX12693]

I'm gonna have to agree with Bod. No one else is saying anything that either makes any sense, or has any ground to stand on. :|

[Siliconmaster]

For the record, anyone who doesn't want a religious marriage can get married by a judge. My parents did that when my grandmother refused to let my mom (at the time a Christian) marry my dad (a Jew) in sight of a Rabbi. Talk about bigotry.

I agree with Bod- while yes, the concept of marriage has been tied with religion, now it is its own entity, and seeing as many religions have their own views on it, there isn't one exact definition of it anyway. Many religions support gay marriage, including sects of Christianity.

[sleepy1212]

It is integrated in society because it represents a major milestone in the average person's life. We grow up, go to college/work, get a decent job, meet someone, get married, make babies, raise sed babies, grow old, have grandchildren, and die. This is the desired course of life. When you take away the right to get married, you are denying that minority their desired course of life.

ahahhhaa, gays only get half a life?

seriously though, the whole gay marriage thing is ridiculous. Gays want it like they want assless chaps HURRDURR INSENSITIVITY OMG!!!, straight people are destroying what they have of it at every chance. It's hard to believe there will be any value in it in the future but whatever I say let them have it.

[Crackers]

How could something that was created by humans exist before humanity...? :ugh:



No religion has the sole rights to marriage. I don't give a shit about what some bigoted preacher says - he shouldn't have the power to dictate what it is that people (gay or otherwise) can and cannot do.
Each religion has a different take on it technically making it a different union. That is why having one more slighty different union for gays that has eqaul rights should mean nothing to them.
Also, the legalisation of gay marriage wouldn't change any religion's rules. Anti-homosexual religious groups would be more than welcome to carry on with their medieval bullshit, it just wouldn't mean anything in the eyes of the law. Sex before marriage is perfectly legal, yet the Catholic Church forbids it. Is this unconstitutional as well?

The two underlined statements contradict each other. It would force change on a religion, and yes while the people are ignorant it would still be unconstitutional to change the rules of their religion. I agree fully that these groups should move on, but we all know they wont.
Bod I am not going to even try to debate with you until you start acting civil, things like this comment you made can not even be considered proper debating.

sorry all i heard was NANANAN I CANT HEAR YOU I"M COMFORTABLE WITH MY DELUSIONS AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR CONTEXT ON THIS ISSUE
You are being a hypocrite in this statement itself since half of my points flew over your head in my argument.I will gladly discuss this topic with you, just please try not to be rude.

For the record, anyone who doesn't want a religious marriage can get married by a judge. My parents did that when my grandmother refused to let my mom (at the time a Christian) marry my dad (a Jew) in sight of a Rabbi. Talk about bigotry.

I agree with Bod- while yes, the concept of marriage has been tied with religion,
Then you dont agree with Bod, he says the exact opposite.
now it is its own entity, and seeing as many religions have their own views on it, there isn't one exact definition of it anyway.
I have been saying this, that is why the title doesnt matter and it is all pointless semantics. A seperate but eqaul union for gays would give them everything but the name, which as said is the reason why this fight over it is stupid. I am going back to my statement that is basically the same thing as complaing that you want the title king of the hill when you have the title emperor of the mound.
Many religions support gay marriage, including sects of Christianity.
But many dont. Herein lies the problem, if you change a religion its unconstitutional, if you dont it is unconstitutional. So the seperate union would keep the religions happy and give gays what they want and from my stand point it would be a fair compromise. I see no other way to solve this situation and so far no one has given me another solution that would work and if you can I would be gladly willing to listen and see if yours is better.

What is occuring here is that many people read my statements and see one point they dont like and instantly focus on it and throw out the rest of the points and goals I said. I am guitly of this too in posts, and I just want people like bod to realize as I have said before I am FOR gay rights. I just believe the only way to ever truly solve this stupid ass conflict is to go with this seperate union for the above mentioned reasons that I have said in all my posts.

[ICEE]

Crackers whats happening here is you're ignoring the entirely valid point that has been made several times here that marriage is not strictly a religious union, but a union of law.


ahahhhaa, gays only get half a life?


hah, well gays who want to make babies can adopt, or get a surrogate.

[sleepy1212]

hah, well gays who want to make babies can adopt, or get a surrogate.

yea i know, just the way you put it the first time was funny..mmm or maybe i felt a little whimsical this morning :haw:

[Bodzilla]

Crackers whats happening here is you're ignoring the entirely valid point that has been made several times here that marriage is not strictly a religious union, but a union of law.



hah, well gays who want to make babies can adopt, or get a surrogate.
This ice, ice baby seems like a p coo guy.

basically this

also when you legalize gay marriage contrary to popular Myth, it doesn'f force the religious homophobes to marry gay people together. All it allows is people that would want to marry gay people, to marry gay people.

get it yet?

[TeeKup]

In all actuality I'm agreeing mostly with Cracker here. The fact of the matter with me anyways is I want to be married via the law and not really involved with any religion myself.

[paladin]

Why don't we just have 1 judge make all the laws. F U 7 million Californians, your wrong.
:raise:

I can't wait for this to hit the US Supreme Court

[Heathen]

The problem with marriage of same sex couples lies in that it is closely tied with religions that look down upon the act. Marriage is not a universal act of love for everyone, and so it cannot be an unalienable right. An example of this would be to have many wives(this is not true marriage), this act is looked down upon also, but it can't be considered an inalienable right since it is just another bond for love that is not used by everyone.

It boils down to that since (usually) a preacher, a man whose religion is against homosexuality, marries partners and the bond is under the law of that god, the religion prohibits the union of gays. So here is the problem: The government would be forced to change the rules of a religion, which IS against a constitutional right.

So here is my opinion on this. The only reason gays want to be married is because the religions that enforce it are the dominant religions of the world so it is in their mind that marriage would be a universal aknowledgement that their union is allowed. But to be honest it boils down to fucking semantics as marriage and all the other unions pretty much mean the same thing and last time I checked they are allowed a union.
That said, what is unconstiutional is the financial and other rights given to married couples that are denied to this other union. Religion and marriage are too closely tied together, and I find a new union should be made for gays, atheists, or anyone else who wants an official bond that is unassociated with any religion and it should have all the rights marriage has.

So in a nutshell, gays should not be allowed to be married, but yes they deserve a form of union for themselves and others that does not have religious involvement and they should be allowed the same rights married couples get.
Marriage is not a religious union and so gays have all the right in the world to be married.





So here is my opinion on this. The only reason gays want to be married is because the religions that enforce it are the dominant religions of the world so it is in their mind that marriage would be a universal aknowledgement that their union is allowed. But to be honest it boils down to fucking semantics as marriage and all the other unions pretty much mean the same thing and last time I checked they are allowed a union.
That said, what is unconstiutional is the financial and other rights given to married couples that are denied to this other union. Religion and marriage are too closely tied together, and I find a new union should be made for gays, atheists, or anyone else who wants an official bond that is unassociated with any religion and it should have all the rights marriage has.
I've seen married couples that fucking hate each other but are allowed to be married, and it pisses me off to know gay people that are more in love than any people I have ever met, and they cant legally marry in the state they reside because they are both men. They don't want to get married to be validated by religion. They want to get married because they are genuinely in love. The sanctity of marriage? Marriage should be about love, not gender.


So in a nutshell, gays should not be allowed to be married, but yes they deserve a form of union for themselves and others that does not have religious involvement and they should be allowed the same rights married couples get.
And let me say that I REALLY don't understand what people's problem with gay marriages is. If you don't think gay marriage is right, chances are you aren't going to be having one. They are arguing against a matter that has nothing to do with them.


Marriage can be done COMPLETELY without religion. Separation of state and law should be enough to make gay marriage legal because the only reason it is illegal is because bigoted, insecure, intolerant, kainotophobic religionists don't want gays to have an equal union. Separate but equal didn't work before and it wont fly now.

thats not to say that all religious people are bigots, insecure, or fear change. Its mostly the excessive religionists that are. Its things like this that make me feel like one day we will look back on religion and wonder why most people bought into some dogmatic mindset that made us all intolerant bigots who fought over foolish things like gay rights that shouldn't even need to be fought over. Spoilered so I don't start an anti religion argument because that isn't my purpose. I think religion is a good thing, people just corrupt it.


Thing is, most people get married in a church by a preacher, so while the above should be true, it is not. The religion is still undeniably tied to marriage. This is why a new union with the same rights should be made for people who do not want to be associated with these religions. It would not be discrimination it would be catering actaully.

Maybe where you live, but where I live that isn't the case. Most people where I live would rather die than have a marriage in a church. There are less and less marriages in a church now than ever. When I was younger and I had to get my conformation or whatever my grandmother wanted me to get, I asked "what is this for?" and my grandmother told me "Its so you can get married in a church." and I quickly decided I didn't care enough to do it.

I'm sorry Crackers, but it sounds like you live in the south about 40 years ago. Nowadays, hardly anyone is bound in holy matrimony. Or maybe that's just here in Louisiana.

E: and I just counted. I have been to 9 weddings and only 2 were religious. And the only religious thing about them was the words holy matrimony and the fact that the dude wedding them was a preacher.

[paladin]

Separation of church and state (US wise) was adopted to keep government out of individual conscience, not to keep religion out of government. It just so happens to have evolved into the notion of keeping religion out of government.

[Phopojijo]

I pretty much agree with you iron on the whole point that gays deserve eqaul rights, I just believe they and along with other people who do not support that religion should have a seperate but just as good union. Ordained ministers alone have the power to marry you, this does make the religion still tied with marriage. To take the religion out would be to force change on that religion, and that is unconstitutional, so the only outcome has to be the creation of a seperate union.1) Marriage isn't a registered trademark.

2) Allowing gay marriage isn't forcing a private institution to perform them.

[Aerowyn]

Separation of church and state (US wise) was adopted to keep government out of individual conscience, not to keep religion out of government. It just so happens to have evolved into the notion of keeping religion out of government.

This could quite possibly be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

It's as if you're saying, "Separation of Church and State's not about keeping religion out of my government, it's about keeping government out of my religion." It's the same thing. Just as government should have no business telling people how to practice their religion, religious institutions should have no place in making decisions and laws for the entire country, considering that we're of all different creeds.

If you're in agreement with religion as a basis of government, I think you'd be better suited to live in Afghanistan. Then you can tell this girl, whose nose and ears were cut off because she ran away from an abusive husband and in-laws, how great it is that Islam IS the law:
http://images.theage.com.au/2010/08/06/1753439/Aisha-420x0.jpg

What I want to know is.... why does it bother you so much? How much could it possibly hurt you if two men or two women that you won't ever meet in your life decide to be HAPPY together? How much physical pain would you be in to know that they are living their lives in peace? Does this affect you financially, that two men decide to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license? How will your life be any worse by letting two people in love live theirs?

If you're concerned about what exactly it is they do in the bedroom, then maybe we should ALL start documenting every time someone has crazy kinky weird sex involving chocolate syrup and kitty litter and whips and candles and squids and a rubber chicken. Maybe we could pass a law saying that anyone that likes anal sex, oral sex, and dildos can't get married.

Or maybe you should stop being a pervert, and pay attention to your own sex life instead of imposing your religious beliefs on someone else's.

[Heathen]

Separation of church and state (US wise) was adopted to keep government out of individual conscience, not to keep religion out of government. It just so happens to have evolved into the notion of keeping religion out of government.

Good.

[Phopojijo]

Religious values in the Government aren't wrong... it depends on which values and to what extent.

[Heathen]

But thats just the thing. You don't just get people who take religion as good moral lessons, you also get bigotry and intolerance. Not always, but even a small margin of those things should not be allowed to exist in the government. Loving thy neighbor and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is fine, but gays burning in hell and those who don't agree with you being infidels shouldn't be in

Now thats not to say that the government isn't corrupt to some degree. We all know that isn't true.

[Kyle]

Separation of church and state (US wise) was adopted to keep government out of individual conscience, not to keep religion out of government. It just so happens to have evolved into the notion of keeping religion out of government.

Actually, no piece of the constitution speaks of the 'separation of church and state', the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I for one agree that religion should have no part in government policies, laws, or schools; with the exception being a class that teaches multiple religions, not just Christianity like many Americans seem to be pushing. Like many people have said, if the government can't interfere with religion then religion should not be able to interfere with the government. However, the latter is inevitable because some voters are influenced by their religious beliefs to vote a certain way, such as against gay marriage. I prefer a government that runs on facts and reasoning (as well as a bit of emotion) that can adapt to changes in the world over one that focuses in beliefs that are concrete and don't change like that of religion in most cases. That, and I think many Americans take the Bible too literally. Heck, while there are quite a few Americans who renounce things like evolution, the Catholic Church changed their view on it and actually supports evolution today making it one of the few cases where religion adapted to changes in society.

To me, California seems to be the beginning of a wide sweep across America, first with the over turning of Prop 8 and also the possibility that marijuana will be legalized and taxed. It's only a matter of time before gay people get the right to marry, might as well legalize it now. If they want to marry and be miserable like some straight married couples, let them.

[Crackers]

Ok, I gladly admit that marriage can be not associated with a religion, but it doesn't stop the fact that a seperate union seems the only way to stop all this fighting. If the gays get marriage, idiots will shit themselves and if the gays dont they will do the same. At least a union with a different name could some what appease both sides.

[ICEE]

Ok, I gladly admit that marriage can be not associated with a religion, but it doesn't stop the fact that a seperate union seems the only way to stop all this fighting. If the gays get marriage, idiots will shit themselves and if the gays dont they will do the same. At least a union with a different name could some what appease both sides.

That does not appease both sides. Gays want equality. Calling a gay marriage anything less than "Marriage" is not equality, even if it comes with the same benefits.

I just don't understand why this is an issue for anyone...

[Crackers]

As said iron it is not an issue for me, I am merely trying to voice my opinion on a good way to solve this controversy.
Iron on the subject of why this is an issue to people, it really comes down to obvious things such as how they were raised and their parents acted. Like it or not we are in some ways mirrors of our parents and these people were taught to hate gays. It's pretty much the same thing how alot of older people are still racist, but how can you expect them to uproot their life? All people have different values and want to prioritise theirs over others. People dislike gay marriage because their values tell them its wrong and they do not want their personal values put down. Right or wrong does not apply to them as they always view their personal values to be the correct ones, everybody does.
Simply typing this though made me come to a revelation that is obvious; You can not make everyone happy. The issue comes down now to who the government wants to piss off more.

[paladin]

Crazy stuff about a quote I took out of context and made a juxtaposition assumption on.

Way to take what I said and make outrageous assumption. Since when is pointing out facts a conviction of my beliefs?

The purpose of separation of church and state is so that the Federal Government cannot adopt a religion or moral guideline and impose it on the populace through law. Our founding fathers wanted a country of diverse religion. What the hell do they teach in public schools?

The government should get its overweight nose out of the marriage business and make everything a civil union. If a couple wants to dub themselves married, let them do it on their own, in what ever religious fashion they want. Marriage should be a title.


Since when was marriage a right?

Marriage and civil unions became a right when the title gained legal benefits, such as joint tax filing, medical visitation, and the right to not testify against your spouse.

[Aerowyn]

Way to take what I said and make outrageous assumption. Since when is pointing out facts a conviction of my beliefs?

The purpose of separation of church and state is so that the Federal Government cannot adopt a religion or moral guideline and impose it on the populace. What the hell do they teach in public schools?

I realize that is what separation of church and state is, but your post made it sound like (or it read like) you were suggesting "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter/you got your peanut butter in my chocolate." It sounded, to me, as if you were saying that religion has a place in government, but not the other way around. And if I read that completely wrong, then I sincerely apologize. It's easy to misinterpret someone over the internet. *shrug*

But my example still stands that having religion as a basis for a government is an absolutely horrid idea.

Homosexuality is evil according to THE BIBLE. Considering that the Bible is not the law of the United States of America, we shouldn't be trying to bar homosexuals from rights that anyone else enjoys purely on the basis of "it's sinful."

And you didn't address the other half of my post regarding how it would harm someone for two men to get married. Gays offend some people and for this reason people think they shouldn't have rights. Similarly:

Fat people offend me. And gluttony is evil in the Bible, isn't it? It's one of the seven deadly SINS. Since overeating is inherently evil, I don't think fat people should be able to get married.

[paladin]

Juxtaposition :eng101: l2 read outside the lines. You see a reply from me and automatically think its wrong. Stop treating me like media matters treats GB.

[Crackers]

You both asume the other is wrong, hence the debating. What should be changed is both of yalls ability to accept others opinions and to try to see from their view point.

[Bodzilla]

i did,

i was once a racist ignorant homophobe,
but then one day i grew a brain and realized there are much more important things to hate people over.

And paladin, corret me if i read that wrong, but did you just imply that Glen Beck cops unfair criticism from the media?
:psyduck:

[Crackers]

Oh bod speaking of important things I still have that file of you I was painting, I just need a new tablet to finish it.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Land of the 'free'

also even 2nd world countries are more advanced...even neighbor Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Europe

[rossmum]

anyone who thinks gay marriage is bad in any way is a fucking retarded cunt

ditto anyone who uses religion as an excuse

you can cry all you fucking want, but there is absolutely no scientific or plain logical argument to back up your bullshit, and those are the only arguments that matter worth a damn. don't like it? don't get a gay marriage yourself. don't shove your outdated, retarded, they're-different-and-it-scares-me bullshit down anyone else's throat.

the world will be a better place when the last of these people are dead.

e/ by the way, paladin, glenn beck gets treated the way he does because he is a batshit insane, paranoid, trouble-inducing ignoramus. if people stopped being stupid enough to listen to a goddamn word he says, the world would be considerably less idiotic.

you know what? fuck it. i haven't really said much about this previously as i am at least somewhat religious and a good deal of my family are, but fuck organised religion. it is the literal leading cause of problems in the world today and has been since it came into widespread being. personal religion is fine unless you're a fuckwit who likes to preach at others, but organised religion gives retards the numbers they need to drag society back into the dark hole it's still trying to claw its way out of. if it wasn't for religion a whole slew of the most fucked up things in history would never have happened.

i still believe that something other than random chance made the big bang happen, but i sure as fuck would be glad to see the back of any kind of organised religion at all - or at least the fucking crazies who ruin it for everyone else, although we know that's even less likely than the whole lot going.

[Heathen]

Ross to save the day!

[Crackers]

anyone who thinks gay marriage is bad in any way is a fucking retarded cunt

ditto anyone who uses religion as an excuse

you can cry all you fucking want, but there is absolutely no scientific or plain logical argument to back up your bullshit, and those are the only arguments that matter worth a damn. don't like it? don't get a gay marriage yourself. don't shove your outdated, retarded, they're-different-and-it-scares-me bullshit down anyone else's throat.

the world will be a better place when the last of these people are dead.

e/ by the way, paladin, glenn beck gets treated the way he does because he is a batshit insane, paranoid, trouble-inducing ignoramus. if people stopped being stupid enough to listen to a goddamn word he says, the world would be considerably less idiotic.

you know what? fuck it. i haven't really said much about this previously as i am at least somewhat religious and a good deal of my family are, but fuck organised religion. it is the literal leading cause of problems in the world today and has been since it came into widespread being. personal religion is fine unless you're a fuckwit who likes to preach at others, but organised religion gives retards the numbers they need to drag society back into the dark hole it's still trying to claw its way out of. if it wasn't for religion a whole slew of the most fucked up things in history would never have happened.

i still believe that something other than random chance made the big bang happen, but i sure as fuck would be glad to see the back of any kind of organised religion at all - or at least the fucking crazies who ruin it for everyone else, although we know that's even less likely than the whole lot going.
Read the book Angels and Demons, pretty much the plot is caused by the link found on this. Movie sucks though compared to the book.

[Yoko]

anyone who thinks gay marriage is bad in any way is a fucking retarded cunt

ditto anyone who uses religion as an excuse

This is what mormons actually believe (http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007241).

[Aerowyn]

This is what mormons actually believe (http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007241).

NO, this is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46PXaJxzuDE)

Also, Yoko, those people seem batshit to me. I don't understand what is so hard about the concept of tolerance.

[Syuusuke]

Oh My God Aerowyn, it's like they're devoid of half a brain. I mean they have one, but they're not using it right!

[Crackers]

You should have tolerance to view it from their shoes. They have different values and thus have different opinions then you. Just because they refuse to have empathy doesnt mean that we should do the same. If you want to understand them, go study them. I have read the bible through twice, and I do not even believe in god, it just helps expand my knowledge of people who do.

edit- Sorry, it annoys me when people call other people retards for having different opinions. I am against their opinion too but it doesn't make theirs instantly wrong or less worthy then ours. Unless they're sticking a chainsaw up their ass hole (even then this is most likely insanity) or have an official diagnosis then no human is retarded and deserves respect, even if it is not given back.

[Phopojijo]

You should have tolerance to view it from their shoes. They have different values and thus have different opinions then you. Just because they refuse to have empathy doesnt mean that we should do the same. If you want to understand them, go study them. I have read the bible through twice, and I do not even believe in god, it just helps expand my knowledge of people who do.

edit- Sorry, it annoys me when people call other people retards for having different opinions. I am against their opinion too but it doesn't make theirs instantly wrong or less worthy then ours. Unless they're sticking a chainsaw up their ass hole (even then this is most likely insanity) or have an official diagnosis then no human is retarded and deserves respect, even if it is not given back.The thing is -- they're viewing it from a perspective that is outside the purview of the problem.

The problem is whether a marriage between two people of the same gender will be recognized under law.

It does not state that any private institution needs to perform these marriages -- nor is the term "marriage" a copyright or trademark of any organization. There are no grounds to deny same-sex marriage except if they believe that God will unleash a plague, pestilence, or disaster out of anger (which has no legal weight.) There's absolutely zero impact to them and yet they still fight to discriminate against other people without getting the slightest bit of personal gain out of it. There's little room to tolerate an opinion like that -- because it is entirely built around intolerance in itself... as there is no other reason for it to exist.

And to be quite honest -- even though a marriage is not a right -- you are not allowed to be unfairly discriminatory, legally speaking. Watch the uproar if a Department of Motor Vehicles granted driver's licenses exclusively to straight white males claiming that it's okay to be homophobic sexist bigots because driving is a privilege and not a right.

[Syuusuke]

I know.

The good thing is that some people are considerate of both sides of the argument, they're knowledgeable and they don't bash on the other view "just because".

[English Mobster]

Here is the way I see it:


Gay people want to get married.
Religious folks think OH NOES THATS GAY WE DONT WANNA THINK ABOUT IT NANANANANANANA~
Religious folks get a petition to ban marriage, favoring a "Civil Union".
Said petition becomes an initiative, goes to vote, passes by ONE percent, due to fearmongering tactics used by the religious people promoting the initiative (if gays are allowed to marry, gay marriage will be taught and promoted in school!).

Now, in THEORY, the gays should get their Civil Union, and the religious get marriage.
However, in practice, it doesn't work that way.

A Civil Union is not the same as a marriage. Marriage has been around for hundreds of years, and has thousands upon thousands of laws that give a married couple certain rights (for example, if a partner dies, the other one gets the money from the insurance, the house, etc.).
Civil Unions do not get the same rights, and herein lies the issue. Because a Civil Union is not technically a MARRIAGE, it doesn't get any of the same rights as a marriage.
In other words, if one partner dies in a Civil Union, s/he will have to fight a legal battle to claim the other's life insurance, since they aren't technically MARRIED. Their Civil Union does not have the same laws protecting it as they do marriage.
All of this could be avoided if gay marriage was legal.

Religious folk think "Marriage is only between a man and a woman."
To that, I ask: Where is this defined?
One cannot point to the Bible for evidence in a court of law; separation of Church and State forbids it. There IS nowhere that says that marriage is between a man and a woman, only that it is between two people who love each other very much. Love is defined by excretions of the chemical oxytocin, which itself is a very "blunt" instrument. Being exposed to almost any object for a period of time will cause someone to grow attached to it. Once someone grows attached to something, they begin producing oxytocin, effectively falling in love with the object (hence why people are sad when pets die, name their cars, or cry when selling their house).
Japan argues that if oxytocin is present, they can marry that object, as they technically love it. This means that both gay and straight marriages are legal (with the side effect that you can marry any object at all, from your anime pillow to your cat).

Another argument: "Gay marriage is unnatural."
The Scientific Journal Public Library of Science ONE, dated July 2008, determined that one reason for the survival of male homosexuality, even though gay men produce fewer offspring than straight men, is that the 'gay gene' must be somehow beneficial to women, otherwise it would have been eliminated from the gene pool. In addition, other animals in nature have been shown to have homosexual tendencies, especially among mammals. Apes and Chimpanzees have been the most strongly documented, although there are cases of Dolphin homosexual acts as well.
If it wasn't natural, it wouldn't exist, simple as that.
However, I argued around the asserted point, proving that gayness itself is natural, not that gay marriage is (a very slight, yet important, distinction). But even heterosexual marriage isn't natural, not in most of the animal kingdom, and even for the majority of our own history. Marriage as we know it is a Victorian invention; before the Middle Ages, marriage was between a man and as many women (or other men) as he liked. This is true for the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, all the great societies of our past believed in Polygamic marriages.
This can be seen in our relatives, as well: only about 3% of mammal species are monogamous, and few of these species mate for life. Both partners in these "animal marriages" engage in extra-pair mating, very similar to how humanity was for most of its history. Lifelong sexual loyalty in nature is a very rare commodity, and it can be argued that marriage itself is unnatural.
Marriage is an invention of the Church that has taken hold in our society.
As time went on, it was protected and integrated into the state, forming two distinct marriages: a religious marriage and a state marriage. These two are very distinct, and the State marriage trumps both.
You can get married with a Pastor and not file any paperwork; a true religious marriage. Your bond is only seen by your religion and is not a state marriage, as you didn't file any paperwork with the state to make it so. As such, your marriage is not protected by any laws (and divorce is nice and easy, as long as your religion puts up with it).
You can just file your paperwork with the state and have a state marriage, even without any kind of ceremony. Your bond may not be seen by your religion, but is protected by law.
This law will only change the state definition of marriage; the religious definition will remain untouched. The state one, in the long run, is the only one that matters.
Pastors and Priests can bitch and whine all the way to the Supreme Court, but the fact is that a State marriage and a Religious marriage are two separate matters. The religious can choose to ignore any bonds between gays, but their definition of marriage does not affect the state.

[paladin]

Except the overwhelming majority of African Americans was the tipping point of Prop 8 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html), not these crazed religious folk you speak of. Why don't you start calling out black people for being homophobes? Afraid of being called a racist?


African-American and Latino support for Proposition 8 not significantly higher when church attendance is factored in
Da (http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.4863891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm)
For all of you that think all the yes-black voters are crazy red neck church singin folk.

Don't completely play the blame game with religion. Its not the only factor in the passing of prop 8.

[English Mobster]

D-D-DOUBLE POST (sorry, I hadn't read the thread all the way through and couldn't help myself).

Read the book Angels and Demons, pretty much the plot is caused by the link found on this. Movie sucks though compared to the book.
Angels and Demons is a work of FICTION, as is The DaVinci Code. Both are as factual as Indiana Jones. Angels and Demons focuses around the Illuminati, which itself is an organization made out to be much more than it actually was, like the Knights Templar and the Ninjas of Japan. All of these organizations kept little to no records and had a lot of secrets.
These secrets led to rampant speculation among the people, with many guesses based on no coherent facts.
All of this added up and made all three of these secretive organizations legendary. Historians agree that most of these organizations are nowhere NEAR as sensational as writers like Dan Brown make them out to be.
Here's a tidbit by a historian explaining a lot of the bullshit behind Dan Brown's writings (he's a great writer, but remember it's all fiction based loosely around fact):
YX45Yw7nZkA
Trust me, I'm an aspiring writer myself, I've learned a lot of the ins and outs of the business: in order to make money, you have to cause a sensation. Like a good speculative fanfiction, you have to take some hard facts and sensationalize them, blow them out to be much, MUCH larger than life. The more facts you have in your story, the better.
However, the facts don't always MAKE a good story, so feel free to omit some that may dampen the effect of your story a bit (The DaVinci Code: the "bloodline of Jesus Christ" was in fact a myth began by a noted con artist in the 1960s, who came out with the truth that he had made it all up in the 1990s; Angels and Demons: the Illuminati was an organization formed in the late 18th century).

This is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to make clear that works by Dan Brown are fiction and have NO BASIS IN THE TRUTH. They are a storyline based around a series of selectively-chosen facts to make a sensation, but they were never meant to be taken more than just that: a story.

[Crackers]

D-D-DOUBLE POST (sorry, I hadn't read the thread all the way through and couldn't help myself).

Angels and Demons is a work of FICTION, as is The DaVinci Code. Both are as factual as Indiana Jones. Angels and Demons focuses around the Illuminati, which itself is an organization made out to be much more than it actually was, like the Knights Templar and the Ninjas of Japan. All of these organizations kept little to no records and had a lot of secrets.
These secrets led to rampant speculation among the people, with many guesses based on no coherent facts.
All of this added up and made all three of these secretive organizations legendary. Historians agree that most of these organizations are nowhere NEAR as sensational as writers like Dan Brown make them out to be.
Here's a tidbit by a historian explaining a lot of the bullshit behind Dan Brown's writings (he's a great writer, but remember it's all fiction based loosely around fact):
YX45Yw7nZkA
Trust me, I'm an aspiring writer myself, I've learned a lot of the ins and outs of the business: in order to make money, you have to cause a sensation. Like a good speculative fanfiction, you have to take some hard facts and sensationalize them, blow them out to be much, MUCH larger than life. The more facts you have in your story, the better.
However, the facts don't always MAKE a good story, so feel free to omit some that may dampen the effect of your story a bit (The DaVinci Code: the "bloodline of Jesus Christ" was in fact a myth began by a noted con artist in the 1960s, who came out with the truth that he had made it all up in the 1990s; Angels and Demons: the Illuminati was an organization formed in the late 18th century).

This is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to make clear that works by Dan Brown are fiction and have NO BASIS IN THE TRUTH. They are a storyline based around a series of selectively-chosen facts to make a sensation, but they were never meant to be taken more than just that: a story.
Uh.... I just told him he should read it since he might be interested in it because of his belief that the big bang was started by maybe something bigger. I thought it would tickle his fancy, it wasn't even meant to be related to this debate and was off topic, which I apologise for.

[English Mobster]

Ah, it's quite all right. I just quickly skimmed through what I didn't read and assumed you were making an argument based off of that book. My bad.

And Paladin, while I agree that religion is not all to blame (although I doubt too many atheists voted yes on 8), my other points still stand.

[Eleven]

Except the overwhelming majority of African Americans was the tipping point of Prop 8 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html), not these crazed religious folk you speak of. Why don't you start calling out black people for being homophobes? Afraid of being called a racist?

Da (http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.4863891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm)
For all of you that think all the yes-black voters are crazy red neck church singin folk.

Don't completely play the blame game with religion. Its not the only factor in the passing of prop 8.

Um, that second article supports claims that religion was the prevailing factor amongst anti-homosexual marriage advocates. It attributes the high percentage of black voters that were against gay marriage to a greater rate of church attendance. It also debunks the previous figure of 70% of blacks being against gay marriage, instead citing it to be somewhere in the vicinity of 57-59%.


As discussed earlier, the 57-59 percent figure — while higher than white and Asian-American voters — is largely explained by the higher rates of African-American church attendance: 57 percent of African Americans attend church at least once a week, compared to 42 percent of whites and 40 percent of Asian Americans. (http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.4863891/k.35FC/Driving_Factors_of_Prop_8_Vote.htm)

You certainly picked the wrong article to support your argument, Paladin. :-3

[rossmum]

paladin has some weird medical condition which makes him see everything as supporting his arguments even if the opposite is true. it's quite common among conservative sorts

also there's a difference, crackers, between me calling them a retard but it ending there, and them doing their utmost to prevent gay marriage. until i go and firebomb their church or try and prevent them from doing something everyone else can do, i really don't think it even starts to compare.

[Crackers]

Fair enough, and also imagining you trying to fire bomb a church made me emit a small chuckle. I just saw you with the weirdest face in one of those tiny walmart plastic airplane rides throwing molotov cock tails at a church as you scurried by!

[paladin]

58-59% is still an over whelming majority. At least, last time I check.

[sleepy1212]

There hasn't been a single good point made in this thread except for maybe "It's none of your business."

Everything else is just complete intolerance/ignorance from both sides.

It's like listening to NAMBLA argue with the Flat-Earth Society.

[SnaFuBAR]

58-59% is still an over whelming majority. At least, last time I check.

Regardless, the categorization of what races supported it the most is irrelevant, because that's not what the argument was. It was, and so the article shows, that the overwhelming majority were religiously affiliated. Argument invalid. Cya.

[iizahsum]

There hasn't been a single good point made in this thread except for maybe "It's none of your business."

Everything else is just complete intolerance/ignorance from both sides.

It's like listening to NAMBLA argue with the Flat-Earth Society.

It's none of your business sums it up perfectly though. What do you care with that someone wants to do this with there life, It will affect you in absoulutly no way. It's not like there planning on taking over the country or threatining to wipe out the entire damn human race off the planet, It seems that if your neighbors gay those subjects don't even matter. This country was founded to escape the overly powered church in the western civilizations. It was founded on the fact that we didn't want to be told we didn't have a voice and that had to abide by every thing one person said. We came here for freedom and restricting ones right to live there life in a way that makes them happy is not giving them the freedom they damn well deserve.

[Bodzilla]

YmPNbuLwq4o

[Siliconmaster]

Lmao- love her stuff.

[English Mobster]

Wow.
Normally I don't subscribe to channels that aren't just lols, but she has gained one new subscriber today.

[Phopojijo]

Eh -- she (in the past annoyed/is annoying) me so I won't be subscribing -- but she is right.

[CN3089]

Hey, did anybody mention how Canada rules yet? Because we do. Well, I'm off to get gay married and have it be officially recognized by my federal government, cya




:canadasmug:


Oh and the stay is going to be lifted on the 18th in California, go get gay married eagleland dudes (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2)

[Syuusuke]

I wonder how the people who are opposing feel about that.

[Heathen]

Stupid? Isn't that what they always feel?

E: that was a lol post so no one get butthurt.

Someone already complained...

[rossmum]

Hey, did anybody mention how Canada rules yet? Because we do. Well, I'm off to get gay married and have it be officially recognized by my federal government, cya




:canadasmug:


Oh and the stay is going to be lifted on the 18th in California, go get gay married eagleland dudes (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2)
canada, more like ownada



I wonder how the people who are opposing feel about that.
hopefully bad enough to remove themselves from the gene pool

[sleepy1212]

remove themselves from the gene pool

lulz :eng101: irony!

[Bodzilla]

lol i'll give you that one

[Kornman00]

Just say no... to robot marriage? (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/11/6034141-just-say-no-to-robot-marriage)

Ladies and gents of modachitty, I present to you: The Star Trek Defense
IYR1e51n3vk

:giggle:

[thehoodedsmack]

I guess that fellow doesn't realize that the brain is nothing but an advanced chemical computer.

Personally, if a machine was able to demonstrate functional sapience, on a human level, I'd have no problem with someone marrying it.

[Kornman00]

Pffft, I'm past robotic marriage...what about people marrying clones :ohdear:? What if a robot married a clone of someone who is the same sex as it? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!

[annihilation]

_bP48M2BEs0

[Phopojijo]

Pffft, I'm past robotic marriage...what about people marrying clones :ohdear:? What if a robot married a clone of someone who is the same sex as it? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!-5ef9xiA61M

[TVTyrant]

Lol at the point where this devolved to being the YouTube and random funny pictures thread.

As far as gay marriage goes, I have to go with the point that its none of anyone else's business what they do. Who are we to say what they can and can't do as people who love each other. Is gay sex "icky". Yes, yes it is (sorry anyone on this forum who is gay). But so is doing it with multiple partners and not wearing a condom. Or the man's dream of "twincest". All are indeed, "icky". The fact is that most people who are homophobes base their opinions on homosexuals by using the "icky" factor. It is gross, they are gross. Thats their thinking. All of these anti-gay laws ar unconstitutional because of the 14th ammendment of the United States constitution. We cannot take away the life, liberty, or property of a group of people. Without the due process of law

For those of you who are for gay marriage, please leave religion out of this. Yes, marriage began as a religious practice. Back in the cave days there was an alpha male in the tribe who fucked whoever he wanted. When we came up wit the idea of deities we developed marriage to equalize power among males. I am not saying it is a Christian practice alone. But its root is in religion. Every group from native Americans to Aboriginal Australians to the Mongolians root their marriage practices in their own mythologies. That being said, in modern terms marriage is NOT about religion. Marriage is about the feelings of fellowship and sexuality that you feel towards another individual. If your a dude and you feel that way towards your girlfriend of four years, by all means. If your a dude and you feel that way towards some other dude you've been having a relationship with for an important part of your life, okay go ahead. Our society is quickly moving towards secularity in life, and the traditional religiously rooted practices will adapt just like we adapted from ape living structures to religiously based ones.
I say leave religion out because they are not the only ones. I know a lot of people who hate religion/christianity and also hate gays. "Yo, its gross dogg" is pretty much the attitude amongst many young males in the US, sadly. Religious people probably make up the majority but I would bet there are plenty of regular ole "fag haters" who vote too.

Not trying to generalize, but as far as my understanding goes, the black American community is a very religious one. No, most of them aren't Westboro crazy maniacs, but many are religious, which is why they would vote against gay marriage. Many minority groups in the US are statistically very religious. I have never meet a Hispanic person in my life (my school was 49% Hispanic) who was not religious. Its not a bad thing, its just a statistical thing.

Also, KornMan they already covered this. Check out some of Futurama's new episodes. Robosexuality FTW!!!

[t3h m00kz]

Oh man looks like they'll have to have a recall on those mechanical hands.